Friday, March 4, 2016

MESQUITE TX - A NEIGHBOR'S 2 PIT BULLS RUN LOOSE MULTIPLE TIMES AND KILL ANOTHER DOG AND A CAT AND ATTACKED 2 TEENAGE GIRLS- ONE IS BANNED FROM THE TOWN AND THE OTHER IS GIVEN BACK TO THE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS !!!

A group of neighbors is outraged at their city’s response to multiple attacks by a pair of aggressive dogs. The PIT BULL TERRIERS struck twice, two months apart, injuring two teens and killing family pets.

Now, one of the repeat offenders is back at home and the victims want to know why. It’s why neighbors on Palm Drive in east Mesquite keep an eye on the house with the carport in the middle of the block.

That’s where two pit bull terriers, “Pretty Boy” and “Cookie,” live and last December, they escaped from their yard. They roamed four doors down where Ray Minjarez was putting up Christmas lights with his pet dog by his side.

Her says without warning, the two dogs attacked. He says he escaped inside of his front door with his dog just in time.

“They were both trying to launch at me,”

Minjarez said. “The black and white dog, she had her snout inside the door. And I had a staple gun and I hit [her] in the nose and [she] yelped.”

Minjarez called Mesquite police, who captured the dogs. The owner was issued a citation and his dogs returned. The attack was never investigated by Animal Control officials, neighbors said.

Minjarez says he couldn’t believe it. “They served those two pit bull dogs right back, right back,” he said.

On Feb. 17, two weeks ago, “Pretty Boy” and “Cookie” got out again. Sam Denny, who lives across the street from Minjarez, says he was climbing in his truck when the black and white female attacked.

“I went to hitting her with the newspaper because she was right on top of me,” Denny said. “She was just right there trying to bite me.”

Denny says the dogs suddenly diverted and attacked a barking Chihuahua across the street. That dog, "Rocky," was killed. So was "Banjo," a cat belonging to Jim and Kelly Shepperd.

Then, the dogs attacked and injured two neighborhood girls, 15 and 17.

Kristi Samons’ daughter suffered bites on her legs and arms. Her daughter escaped further injury by diving into a neighbor’s car. “If she hadn’t have been there to save my daughter’s life, it might have been a different story,” Samons said.

Mesquite police were called again. Both dogs were captured and, this time, placed in quarantine. The owner, again, was issued citations. Animal Control officials have banned the male dog from the city. The female "Cookie" has been allowed to return home..

Neighbors who had run-ins with the female pit bull say they are shocked she’s back home. “She wasn’t coming up to play with me,” Denny said. “She was trying her damnedest to bite me.”

Sammons and Minjarez also say the female was more aggressive than the male. They can’t understand why the city would risk another attack. “If they come and attack either [of these neighborhood kids], I'm going to try to personally sue the City of Mesquite,” Minjarez said.

Mesquite City officials declined an on-camera interview but gave us a statement:

“The City of Mesquite takes pet owner responsibilities seriously. The owner of these dogs received a citation from the city in December as a result of the initial complaint call.

The city also takes the public’s safety seriously. Upon getting the call on February 17 of these same dogs at large in the community, the city responded on scene within nine minutes and took the dogs to the city’s shelter. Due to the nature of the offenses committed by the dogs, they were placed into rabies quarantine for the required 10-day rabies observation period.

Both dogs were reclaimed by the owner. The dog who committed the bites was evicted from the city limits. Mesquite Animal Services made that decision based on the incidents reported, plus monitoring the dog’s behavior during rabies quarantine. City staff will continue to make home visits to verify the dog has not returned to the city. The dog was relocated by the owner to Sulfur Springs and their animal control has been notified by our staff.

The city will continue to swiftly and judiciously implement its procedures to enforce the ordinances when it comes to pet ownership and public safety.”

The victims say they have never been questioned by investigators. They say that had they been asked, they would have confirmed the female was dangerous as well. Just days ago, neighbors photographed what appeared to be a black and white pit bull roaming in a front yard. It’s a sight that strikes fear into those already traumatized and upset the city is not doing more.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.